This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-513T
entitled 'Telecommunications: Challenges to Assessing and Improving
Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands' which was
released on March 7, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S.
Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10 a.m. EST Tuesday, March 7, 2006:
Telecommunications:
Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native
Americans on Tribal Lands:
Statement of Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-06-513T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-513T, a testimony before the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
An important goal of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, is to
ensure access to telecommunications services for all Americans. This
testimony is based on GAO’s January 2006 report GAO-06-189, which
reviewed 1) the status of telecommunications subscribership for Native
Americans living on tribal lands; 2) federal programs available for
improving telecommunications on these lands; 3) barriers to
improvements; and 4) how some tribes are addressing these barriers.
What GAO Found:
Based on the 2000 decennial census, the telephone subscribership rate
for Native American households on tribal lands was substantially below
the national level of about 98 percent. Specifically, about 69 percent
of Native American households on tribal lands in the lower 48 states
and about 87 percent in Alaska Native villages had telephone service.
This data indicates some progress since 1990, though changes since 2000
are not known. The U.S. Census Bureau is implementing a new survey that
will provide annual telephone subscribership rates, but the results for
all tribal lands will not be available until 2010. The status of
Internet subscribership on tribal lands is unknown because no one
collects this data at the tribal level. Without current subscribership
data, it is difficult to assess progress or the impact of federal
programs to improve telecommunications on tribal lands.
The Rural Utilities Service and the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) have several general programs to improve telecommunications in
rural areas and make service affordable for low-income groups, which
would include tribal lands. In addition, FCC created some programs
targeted to tribes, including programs to provide discounts on the cost
of telephone service to residents of tribal lands. However, one of
FCC’s universal service fund programs, which supports
telecommunications services at libraries, has legislatively based
eligibility rules that preclude tribal libraries in at least two states
from being eligible for this funding. FCC officials told GAO that it is
unable to modify these eligibility rules because they are contained in
statute and thus modifications would require legislative action by
Congress.
The barriers to improving telecommunications on tribal lands most often
cited by tribal officials, service providers, and others GAO spoke with
were the rural, rugged terrain of tribal lands and tribes’ limited
financial resources. These barriers increase the costs of deploying
infrastructure and limit the ability of service providers to recover
their costs, which can reduce providers’ interest in investing in
providing or improving telecommunications services. Other barriers
include the shortage of technically trained tribal members and
providers’ difficulty in obtaining rights of way to deploy their
infrastructure on tribal lands.
GAO found that to address the barriers of rural, rugged terrain and
limited financial resources that can reduce providers’ interest in
investing on tribal lands, several tribes are moving toward owning or
developing their own telecommunications systems, using federal grants,
loans, or other assistance, and partnerships with the private sector.
Some are also focusing on wireless technologies, which can be less
expensive to deploy over rural, rugged terrain. Two tribes are bringing
in wireless carriers to compete with wireline carriers on price and
service. In addition, some tribes have developed ways to address the
need for technical training, and one has worked to expedite the tribal
decision-making process regarding rights-of-way approvals.
What GAO Recommends:
In a draft of its report provided for agency comment, GAO recommended
that FCC determine what data is needed to assess progress toward the
goal of providing access to telecommunications services to Native
Americans living on tribal lands and how this data should be collected,
and then report to Congress on its findings. FCC agreed more data is
needed but maintained that it is not the organization best positioned
to determine what that data should be. Given FCC’s response, Congress
should consider directing FCC to carry out our recommendation. In
addition, Congress should consider amending the Communications Act to
facilitate and clarify tribal libraries’ eligibility for universal
service funds.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-GAO-06-513T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202)
512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Co-Chairman, and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the findings and
recommendations of our January 2006 report, Challenges to Assessing and
Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal
Lands.[Footnote 1] According to the 2000 Census, about 588,000 Native
Americans were residing on tribal lands.[Footnote 2] Telephone
subscribership rates on these lands have historically lagged behind the
overall national rate. In 1990, only 47 percent of Native American
households on tribal lands had telephone service compared to about 95
percent of households nationally. In our report we discuss: 1) the
current status of telecommunications subscribership for Native
Americans living on tribal lands; 2) federal programs available for
improving telecommunications on these lands; 3) barriers to
improvements; and 4) the ways in which some tribes are addressing these
barriers.
To address these issues, we reviewed Census data and interviewed
officials at federal agencies that support telecommunications on tribal
lands. We also interviewed officials representing telecommunications
providers and industry organizations. Additionally, we interviewed
officials of 26 tribes in the lower 48 states and 12 Alaska regional
native nonprofit organizations, chosen on the basis of demographics and
other factors, such as actions being taken on their land to improve
telecommunications. We also visited 6 tribal lands to learn more about
the challenges the tribal members were facing, and actions they were
taking to improve their telecommunications services.[Footnote 3] We
performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards from August 2004 to December 2005. For more
information about the methodology used, see our report, Challenges to
Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on
Tribal Lands.
In summary, we found that:
* The most recent census data, from the year 2000, indicate that the
telephone subscribership rate for Native American households on tribal
lands is still substantially below the national rate. About 69 percent
of these households in the lower 48 states had telephone service, which
is about 29 percentage points less than the national rate of about 98
percent. About 87 percent of Native American households in Alaska
native villages had telephone service, also considerably below the
national rate. We do not know the rate for Internet subscribership for
tribal lands due to a lack of such data from either the Census Bureau
or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
* The Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service and the FCC
have several general programs to improve telecommunications in rural
areas and make service affordable for low-income groups, which would
include tribal lands and their residents. In addition, FCC created some
programs targeted to tribal lands, including programs to provide
discounts on the cost of telephone service to residents of tribal
lands, and financial incentives to encourage wireless providers to
serve tribal lands. However, we found that FCC is not collecting
sufficient data to assess the extent to which its efforts to increase
telecommunications deployment and subscribership on these lands are
succeeding. Also, one of FCC's programs to support telecommunications
for libraries has legislatively based eligibility rules that preclude
tribal libraries in at least two states from being eligible for this
funding.
* Native American officials, service providers, and others cited
several barriers to improving telecommunications on tribal lands. The
most frequently mentioned were the rural, rugged terrain of tribal
lands and the tribes' limited financial resources. These barriers
increase the costs of deploying infrastructure and limit the ability of
service providers to recover their costs. Other barriers cited include
the shortage of technically trained tribal members and the service
providers' difficulty in obtaining rights of way to deploy their
infrastructure on tribal lands.
* Some tribes are making significant progress in addressing these
barriers. For example, we found that several tribes are moving toward
owning or developing their own telecommunications systems using federal
grants, loans, or partnering with the private sector. Some are focusing
on wireless technologies, which can be less expensive to deploy over
rural rugged terrain. Two tribes of the six tribes we visited are
bringing in wireless carriers to compete with wireline carriers on
price and service. In addition, some tribes have developed ways to
address the need for technical training, and one tribe we visited has
worked to expedite the tribal decisionmaking process for rights-of-way
approvals.
Our report has two matters for congressional consideration. First,
Congress should consider directing FCC to determine what additional
data is needed to help assess progress toward the goal of providing
access to telecommunications service on tribal lands, including
advanced services such as high-speed Internet, and how this data should
collected. Second, Congress should consider amending the Communications
Act of 1934 to facilitate and clarify the eligibility of tribal
libraries for funding under FCC's telecommunication support program for
libraries.
I would now like to present additional detail on the results of our
work.
Background:
Tribal lands vary dramatically in size, demographics, and location,
ranging from the Navajo Nation, with 24,000 square miles and over
176,000 Native American residents, to tribal land areas in California
comprising less than 1 square mile with fewer than 50 Native American
residents. Most tribal lands are located in rural or remote locations,
though some are near metropolitan areas. Also, some tribal lands have a
significant percentage of nonNative Americans residing on them.
Tribes are unique in being sovereign governments within the United
States. Their sovereign status has been established by the U.S.
Constitution, treaties, and other federal actions. To help manage
tribal affairs, tribes have formed governments or subsidiaries of
tribal governments that include schools, housing, health, and other
types of corporations. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
in the Department of the Interior has a fiduciary responsibility to
tribes and assumes some management responsibility for all land held in
trust for the benefit of the individual Native American or tribe.
Native American tribes are among the most economically distressed
groups in the United States. According to the 2000 Census, about 37
percent of Native American households had incomes below the federal
poverty level--more than double the rate for the U.S. population as a
whole. Residents of tribal lands often lack basic infrastructure, such
as water and sewer systems, and telecommunications systems.
The federal government has long acknowledged the difficulties of
providing basic services, such as electricity and telephone service, to
rural areas of the country. The concept of universal telephone service
has its origins in Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, (Communications Act) which states that the FCC was created
"for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in
communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as
possible, to all people of the United States, a rapid, efficient,
nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with
adequate facilities at reasonable charges . . . ."[Footnote 4] The goal
of universal service is to ensure that all U.S. residents have access
to quality telephone service regardless of their household income or
geographic location. A 1995 report by the Census Bureau based on 1990
census data noted that about 47 percent of Native American households
on tribal lands had telephone service, compared to about 95 percent of
households nationally.[Footnote 5] In June 2000, the FCC Chairman noted
that telephone subscribership among the rural poor was roughly 20
percent lower than the rest of the nation, while Native Americans
living on tribal lands were only half as likely as other Americans to
subscribe to telephone service.
Tribal Telephone Subscribership Rate is Substantially Below the
National Level and Internet Subscribership Is Unknown:
As of 2000, the telephone subscribership rate for Native American
households on tribal lands had improved since 1990, but was still
substantially below the national rate, while the rate for Internet
subscribership on tribal lands was unknown due to a lack of data.
According to data from the 2000 decennial census, about 69 percent of
Native American households[Footnote 6] on tribal lands in the lower 48
states had telephone service, which was about 29 percentage points less
than the national rate of about 98 percent. About 87 percent of Native
American households in Alaska native villages had telephone service,
also considerably below the national rate. Telephone subscribership
rates for Native American households on individual tribal lands in 2000
varied widely. A few tribal lands had rates above the national level,
but the majority of them had rates below the national level. To get a
better understanding of telephone subscribership rates by individual
tribe and population size, we reviewed data for the 25 tribal lands
with the highest number of Native American households. These 25 tribal
lands represent about 65 percent of all Native American households, as
shown in Census 2000 data, and had a range in telephone subscribership
rates from 38 percent for the Navajo Nation Reservation and Off-
Reservation Trust Land (located in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah) to 94
percent for the Turtle Mountain Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust
Land (located in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota).
While Census data indicate that the average subscribership rate for
Native Americans on tribal lands has increased from about 47 percent of
households in 1990 to about 69 percent in 2000, changes in telephone
subscribership rates since the 2000 decennial census are not known. In
order to provide more current data, the U.S. Census Bureau (Census
Bureau) has begun to gather telephone subscribership data through a
new, more frequent survey that will provide demographic and
socioeconomic data on communities of all sizes, including tribal lands.
However, because it will take time to accumulate a large enough sample
to produce data for small communities, annual reports will not be
available for all small communities, including tribal lands, until
2010.
The rate of Internet subscribership for Native American households on
tribal lands is unknown because neither the Census Bureau nor FCC
collects this data at the tribal level. One survey performed by the
Census Bureau that collects data on Internet subscribership can provide
estimates for the nation as a whole, but the survey's sample cannot
provide reliable estimates of Internet subscribership on tribal lands.
The Census Bureau's new survey will provide data on tribal lands but
does not include a question on Internet subscribership. Without current
subscribership data, it is difficult to assess progress or the impact
of federal programs to improve telecommunications on tribal lands.
FCC collects data on the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability in the United States, but this data cannot be used to
determine Internet subscribership rates for tribal lands.[Footnote 7]
Pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC is
required to conduct regular inquiries concerning the availability of
advanced telecommunications capability for all Americans. To obtain
this data, FCC requires service providers to report a list of the zip
codes where they have at least one customer of high-speed service.
Because the providers are not required to report the total number of
their residential subscribers in each zip code, because tribal lands do
not necessarily correspond to zip codes, and because these data do not
include information on "dial-up" users (i.e., those who access the
Internet without a broadband connection), these data cannot be used to
determine the number of residential Internet subscribers on tribal
lands. The FCC has recognized that its section 706 data collection
efforts in rural and underserved areas need improvement to better
fulfill Congress' mandate.[Footnote 8]
Native Americans Can Benefit from Several General and Tribal-Specific
Federal Programs to Improve Telecommunications Services:
The Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service and FCC are
responsible for several general programs designed to improve the
nation's telecommunications infrastructure and make services affordable
for all consumers, which can benefit tribes and tribal lands. The Rural
Utilities Service has grant, loan, and loan guarantee programs for
improving telecommunications in rural areas. FCC has several programs
(known as "universal service" programs) to make telephone service more
affordable for low-income consumers and consumers living in areas, such
as rural areas, where the cost to provide service is high.
In addition to these general programs, FCC has recognized the need to
make special efforts to improve tribal telecommunications and
established four programs specifically targeted to improving
telecommunications for residents of tribal lands. The Tribal Land
Bidding Credit program provides financial incentives to wireless
service providers to serve tribal lands. The Indian Telecommunications
Initiative disseminates information to tribes and tribal organizations
on telecommunications services on tribal lands, including universal
service programs and other areas of interest. Enhanced Link-Up, which
provides a one-time discount on the cost of connecting a subscriber to
the telephone network, and Enhanced Lifeline, which provides ongoing
discounts on the cost of monthly service, provide more support per
customer than the regular Link-up and Lifeline programs. As with FCC's
other universal service programs, the service providers are reimbursed
from FCC's universal service fund for the discounts they give to the
programs' participants.
Regarding Enhanced Lifeline, we found that, at present, data provided
to the program administrator[Footnote 9] from the service providers can
be broken out by state, but not by tribal land, because the reporting
form does not ask service providers to indicate the number of
participants and amount of funding by tribal land. Because FCC does not
have data on program participation and funding by individual tribal
land, some basic questions cannot be answered: what percentage of
residents of particular tribal lands are benefiting from the programs
and how have the participation rates on individual tribal lands changed
over time?
An additional universal service program, known as E-rate, provides
discounts on telecommunications services for schools and libraries
nationwide. One of our key findings is that some tribal libraries are
not eligible to receive E-rate funds because of an issue involving
federal eligibility criteria. The current statutory provision under the
Communications Act does not allow tribal libraries to obtain E-rate
funding for libraries unless the tribal library is eligible for
assistance from a state library administrative agency under Library
Services Technology Act (LSTA). In at least two cases, tribes have not
applied for E-rate funds because their tribal libraries are not
eligible for state LSTA funds.
Multiple Barriers Exist to Improving Telecommunications on Tribal
Lands:
Tribal and government officials, Native American groups, service
providers, and others with whom we spoke cited several barriers to
improving telecommunications service on tribal lands. The rural
location and rugged terrain of most tribal lands and tribes' limited
financial resources were the barriers to improved telecommunications
most often cited by the officials of tribes and Alaska Native Villages
we interviewed. Generally, these factors make the cost of building and
maintaining the infrastructure needed to provide service higher than
they would be in urban settings. For example, more cable per customer
is required over large, sparsely populated areas, and when those areas
are mountainous, it can be more difficult and costly to install the
cable. The Rural Task Force, formed by the Federal-State Joint Board on
Universal Service,[Footnote 10] documented the high costs of serving
rural customers in a report issued in January 2000, which stated that
the average telecommunications infrastructure cost per customer for
rural providers was $5,000, while the average infrastructure cost per
customer for non-rural providers was $3,000.[Footnote 11] Officials
from 17 tribes and 11 Alaska regional native non-profit organizations
we interviewed told us that the rural location of their tribe is a
telecommunications barrier.
Tribes' limited financial resources are also seen as a barrier to
improving telecommunications services on tribal lands. Many tribal
lands--including some of those we visited, such as the Navajo, the
Mescalero Apache, the Yakama, and the Oglala Sioux--have poverty rates
more than twice the national rate, as well as high unemployment rates.
The 2000 U.S. Census showed that the per capita income for residents on
tribal lands was $9,200 in 1999, less than half the U.S. per capita
income of $21,600. Officials of 33 of the 38 Native American entities
we interviewed told us that lack of financial resources was a barrier
to improving telecommunications services.
These two barriers, the rural location of tribal lands (which increases
the cost of installing telecommunications infrastructure) and tribes'
limited financial resources (which can make is difficult for residents
and tribal governments to pay for services) can combine to deter
service providers from making investments in telecommunications on
tribal lands, resulting in a lack of service, poor service quality, and
little or no competition. For example, a representative of the company
that provides service to the Coeur d'Alene tribe told us that high-
speed Internet was only available in certain areas of the Coeur d'Alene
tribal land and that there were cost issues in providing this service
to the more remote and less densely populated parts of the reservation.
Another provider's representative told us that providing digital
subscriber lines (DSL)[Footnote 12] to most parts of the Eastern Band
of Cherokee's reservation would not be profitable because the land is
rugged and to connect many of those who live out in remote rural areas
would require an investment that would be difficult to justify.
The third barrier most often cited by tribal officials is a shortage of
technically trained tribal members to plan and implement improvements
on tribal lands. Officials of 13 of the 38 Native American tribes and
tribal organizations we interviewed told us that lack of
telecommunications training and knowledge among tribal members is a
barrier to improving their telecommunications. Some of these officials
said they needed more technically trained members to plan and oversee
the implementation of telecommunications improvements, as well as to
manage existing systems. An official of the Coeur d'Alene tribe, who
has technical training, also told us that tribes without technically
trained staff would be at a disadvantage in negotiating with service
providers. This official added that having tribal members trained in
telecommunications was necessary to ensure that a tribe's planned
improvements included the equipment and technology the tribe wanted and
needed.
A fourth barrier cited by tribal officials and other stakeholders is
the complex and costly process of obtaining rights-of-way for deploying
telecommunications infrastructure on tribal lands, which can impede
service providers' deployment of telecommunications infrastructure. In
part, this is because BIA must approve the application for a right-of-
way across Indian lands and to obtain BIA approval, service providers
are required to take multiple steps and coordinate with several
entities during the application process.
Tribes Are Addressing Barriers to Improved Telecommunications in
Different Ways.
From our interviews of officials of 26 tribes and 12 Alaska regional
native non-profit organizations, we found that 22 are addressing the
need to improve their telecommunications services by developing or
owning part, or all, of their own local telecommunications network.
Some of those we spoke to told us that they were doing this because
their provider was unwilling to invest in improved telecommunications
services, in part due to the barriers of the tribe's rural location,
rugged terrain, and limited financial resources. An additional 10
tribes told us that they have considered or are considering owning part
or all of their telecommunications systems.
The tribes we visited are using federal grants, loans, or other
assistance, long-range planning, and private-sector partnerships to
help improve service on their lands. In addition, some tribes have
addressed these barriers by focusing on wireless technologies, which
can be less costly to deploy across large distances and rugged terrain.
For example, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe in Idaho is using a Rural
Utilities Service grant to overcome its limited financial resources and
develop its own high-speed wireless Internet system.
Some tribes are addressing the shortage of technically-trained tribal
members to plan and implement improvements on tribal lands through
mentoring and partnerships with educational institutions. For example,
the Yakama Nation has proposed to connect a local university to its
telecommunications system in exchange for technical training for its
staff. The Mescalero Apache Tribe has improved its technical capacity
by hiring technically trained staff and pairing them with less trained
staff, creating a technical mentoring program.
To help reduce the time and expense required to obtain a right-of-way
across tribal lands, one tribe is developing a right-of-way policy to
make the tribal approval process more timely and efficient. Also, a BIA
official acknowledged that portions of the federal regulations for
rights-of-way over Indian lands, including the section on
telecommunications infrastructure, are outdated. BIA is currently
revising the regulations to better apply to modern utility
technologies, including advanced telecommunications infrastructure,
though the timeframes for completion of this work have not been
established.
Our report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications
for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, contains more information on
these and other tribal initiatives, as well as detailed case studies of
six tribes' efforts to improve their telecommunications infrastructure
and services.
Summary:
Under the principles of universal service, as established by Congress,
FCC has recognized the need to promote telecommunications deployment
and subscribership on tribal lands. Despite improvements in both
deployment and subscribership of telecommunications services, as of
2000, Native American households on tribal lands still lag
significantly behind the rest of the nation. Progress in dealing with
the underlying causes of this problem is difficult to assess because of
a paucity of current information about both deployment and
subscribership of telecommunications for Native Americans on tribal
lands. Moreover, this lack of adequate data makes it difficult for FCC
and Congress to assess the extent to which federal efforts designed to
increase telecommunications deployment and subscribership on these
lands are succeeding.
We found there is a statutory provision in the Communications Act which
precludes some tribal libraries from benefiting from a universal
service program. The Act stipulates that a library's eligibility for E-
rate support is dependent on whether the library is eligible for
certain state library funds. Yet the tribal libraries in at least two
states are precluded under state law from being eligible for such
funds, which has the effect of making these libraries ineligible to
apply for E-rate funds. FCC officials told us that modifying the
federal eligibility criteria to resolve this situation would require
legislative action by the Congress. Clarifying this issue could help
bring high-speed Internet access to more residents of tribal lands
through their tribal libraries.
In a draft of our report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving
Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, provided for
agency comment, we recommended that FCC determine what data is needed
to assess progress toward the goal of providing access to
telecommunications services to Native Americans living on tribal lands
and how this data should be collected, and then report to Congress on
its findings. FCC agreed that more data is needed but maintained that
it is not the organization best positioned to determine what that data
should be. Given FCC's response, we added as a matter for congressional
consideration that Congress should consider directing FCC to determine
what additional data is needed to help assess progress toward the goal
of providing access to telecommunications services, including high-
speed Internet, for Native Americans living on tribal lands; determine
how this data should regularly be collected; and report to Congress on
its findings. We also suggested that to facilitate Internet access for
tribal libraries, Congress should consider amending the Communications
Act of 1934 to allow libraries eligible for Library Services and
Technology Act funds, provided by the Director of Institute of Museum
and Library Sciences to either a state library administrative agency or
to a federally recognized tribe, to be eligible for funding under the E-
rate program.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you or other members of the committee may have about
our findings.
Contact and Acknowledgements:
For questions regarding this testimony, please contact me on (202) 512-
2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony include Carol Anderson-Guthrie, Edda Emmanuelli-Perez,
John Finedore, Michelle Fejfar, Logan Kleier, Michael Mgebroff, John
Mingus, Mindi Weisenbloom, Alwynne Wilbur, Carrie Wilks, and Nancy
Zearfoss.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO-06-189, (Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2006). Available through
GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov).
[2] For our report, GAO defined tribal lands as lands that include any
federally recognized Indian tribe's reservation, off-reservation trust
lands, pueblo, or colony, and Alaska Native regions established
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Pub. L. No. 92-
203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971) (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et
seq.) Tribal lands do not include Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas,
and the population figure of 588,000 does not include the 325,000
Native Americans living on OTSAs. The source of the data that GAO used
throughout this report was the Census 2000 American Indian and Alaska
Native Summary File. The term "Native Americans" is used to refer to
people who identified themselves as American Indians and/or Alaska
Natives alone or in combination with one or more races.
[3] The six tribes are: Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene
Reservation, Idaho; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation,
Washington; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; Oglala
Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Mescalero
Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; and Navajo
Nation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
[4] 47 U.S.C. §151.
[5] Bureau of the Census, Housing of American Indians on Reservations-
-Equipment and Fuels, Statistical Brief, S/B95-11, (Washington, D.C.:
April 1995).
[6] The Census 2000 data in this report are for the American Indian and
Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more other races.
Households are classified by the race of the householder. When the term
Native American households is used, it refers to the total number of
occupied housing units where the race of the householder is American
Indian and/or Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more
other races.
[7] Section 706(c)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 defines
advanced telecommunications, without regard to any transmission media
or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications
capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality
voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any
technology. See, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Title VII, § 706, Feb. 8, 1996,
110 Stat. 153, reproduced in the notes under 47 U.S.C. § 157.
[8] Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, 19 FCC Rcd
22340 (2004).
[9] FCC designated a not-for-profit corporation, the Universal Service
Administrative Company (USAC) to carry out the day-to-day operations of
the universal service programs, although FCC retains responsibility for
overseeing the programs' operations and ensuring compliance with the
commission's rules.
[10] Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required FCC to
institute the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. 47 U.S.C.
§ 254 (a)(1). The board makes recommendations to implement the
universal service provisions of the Act. The board is comprised of FCC
commissioners, state utility commissioners, and a consumer advocate
representative.
[11] Rural Task Force, The Rural Difference: Rural Task Force White
Paper 2, (Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, January
2000), http://www.wutc.wa.gov/rtf (downloaded August 25, 2005).
[12] Digital Subscriber Line is a broadband connection that provides
greater capacity for faster data transmission than can be provided over
a conventional telephone line.